Arthur, Yes that was my thinking, as I found it difficult to use in a basic sentence and understand it, like "resource is a creation". A creation what? factory, event, creation of a project (kickoff), etc. Adding the namespace prefix for change log also helps qualify the creation noun.
Thanks, Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM wrote on 03/22/2011 05:59:23 PM: > From: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA > To: Martin Nally/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], Steve K > Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > Date: 03/22/2011 10:05 PM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Naming Conventions within ChangeLog proposal > > Martin/Steve, > > Re-reading Steve's note, maybe he was objecting to olsc:Creation since it was > in the oslc: namespace. If it's in the oslc-log: namespace, we can use > Creation since it's meaning is scoped to the log namespace. > > Regards, > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Arthur Ryman, PhD, DE > > Chief Architect, Project and Portfolio Management > > IBM Software, Rational > > [image removed] > > Markham, ON, Canada | Office: 905-413-3077, Cell: 416-939-5063 > > From: > > Martin Nally/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > To: > > Arthur Ryman <[email protected]> > > Cc: > > [email protected], [email protected], Steve K > Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > Date: > > 03/22/2011 05:56 PM > > Subject: > > Re: [oslc-core] Naming Conventions within ChangeLog proposal > > +1 on log namespace. I know we're in the habit of using underscore instead of > dash, but I don't like it much - can someone explain where that came from? > > I don't understand the objection to oslc-log:Creation - maybe Steve can > explain to me more before I vote. > > Best regards, Martin > > Martin Nally, IBM Fellow > CTO and VP, IBM Rational > tel: +1 (714)472-2690 > > From: > > Arthur Ryman <[email protected]> > > To: > > Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: > > Martin Nally/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, [email protected], oslc-core- > [email protected] > > Date: > > 03/22/2011 05:38 PM > > Subject: > > Re: [oslc-core] Naming Conventions within ChangeLog proposal > > Steve, > > +1 for the log namespace. > > -1 for CreateEvent - there should be a standard meaning for resource > creation. > > Regards, > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Arthur Ryman, PhD, DE > > Chief Architect, Project and Portfolio Management > IBM Software, Rational > Markham, ON, Canada | Office: 905-413-3077, Cell: 416-939-5063 > > > > > > From: > Steve K Speicher <[email protected]> > To: > Martin Nally <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Date: > 03/22/2011 05:14 PM > Subject: > Re: [oslc-core] Naming Conventions within ChangeLog proposal > Sent by: > [email protected] > > > > Might I suggest a couple alternatives to these as well: > > > oslc:create -> oslc:Creation > This seems too general, is this what we want all of OSLC Core to mean by > Creation? > > -> oslc:CreateEvent > Include more descriptive noun, since in general core namespace > > -> oslc_log:Creation > Same as proposed but included within some change log namespace > > > oslc:update -> oslc:Modification > > oslc:delete -> oslc:Deletion > Same as above > > Thanks, > Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645 > > > From: Martin Nally/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > > Date: 03/22/2011 10:20 AM > > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Naming Conventions > > Sent by: [email protected] > > > > While we're at it we could maybe improve the grammar. It would feel > better > > to me if the terms chosen looked more like nouns than verbs - saying > > something is "a oslc:Create" is awkward. How about the following > > > > oslc:create -> oslc:Creation > > oslc:update -> oslc:Modification > > oslc:delete -> oslc:Deletion > > > > It would be nice to e able to say "an" instead of just "a", but we can't > > do > > that without W3C. > > > > Best regards, Martin > > > > Martin Nally, IBM Fellow > > CTO and VP, IBM Rational > > tel: +1 (714)472-2690 > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:25:58 -0400 > > > From: Arthur Ryman <[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [oslc-core] ChangeLog Vocabulary and Naming Conventions > > > Message-ID: > > > <ofc44196c7.0847d24d-on8525785a.00699988-8525785a.006ac...@ca.ibm.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > > > > > This is a very tiny point. > > > > > > The naming convention for vocabulary terms is that classes and > > individuals > > > begin with upper case, and properties begin with lower case. If we > want > > to > > > align with that, then we should uppercase terms as follows: > > > > > > oslc:Create > > > oslc:Update > > > oslc:Delete > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Arthur Ryman, PhD, DE > > > > > > Chief Architect, Project and Portfolio Management > > > IBM Software, Rational > > > Markham, ON, Canada | Office: 905-413-3077, Cell: 416-939-5063 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Oslc-Core mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net > > >
